In this research Robert Oulds and Niall McCrae look at the causes, symptoms and methods of prevention and treatment of 'moralitis', the societal virus that is causing political correctness and identity politics.

The body politic has become infected. Like the growth of bacteria in a Petri dish, the subversive tenets of cultural Marxism have spread as a pinking of the public discourse. The loss of rationality from public discourse and reckless abandoning of evidence in favour of politically correct moralistic mantras damages the civitas.

Diversity of ideas is strangely absent from the heterogeneity celebrated by the political and cultural establishment. Alongside the widely reported increase in food intolerances, society is suffering from 'ideallergy', an intolerance of other people's ideas.

In this monograph we present our thesis of a cultural virus. This manifests in a moral hegemony that subverts conventional social norms and quashes dissent. In this delusional condition, people may seem to be acting with autonomy, but the forces of conformity are such that their freedom is limited, and their utterances merely regurgitate group-think.

The process by which this has occurred is analogous to a virus. It is an epidemic disease so powerful that it has a cytopathic effect on society, changing the cognition and behaviour of its hosts.

We begin by considering psychological and sociological perspectives on social and political attitudes. In the second half we present our putative cultural virus of 'moralitis'. The causes, symptoms and prognosis are described, followed by methods of prevention and treatment.

Niall McCrae PhD, MSc, RMN is a senior lecturer in mental health at King's College London. Author of two books: The Moon and Madness (Imprint Academic, 2011), and Echoes from the Corridors: the Story of Nursing in British Mental Hospitals (Routledge, 2016). He is a regular writer for Salisbury Review, and various websites including Politicalite, Rebel Priest, Conservative Woman and the Bruges Group.

Robert Oulds, MA, FRSA, is the Director of the Bruges Group. His Masters Degree is in Communications Management. Amongst other works, Robert is the author of Montgomery and the First War on Terror, and Everything you wanted to know about the EU But were afraid to ask, both published by Bretwalda Books. He is the co-author of Federalist Thought Control: The Brussels Propaganda Machine. And served as Cabinet Member for Education in a London Borough and as a Treasurer and Standard Bearer for the Royal British Legion. Robert Oulds regularly appears on television and radio debating topical issues.

Comments
1

Having a philosophy of one type or another does not conform to an actual physical virus that has a DNA and RNA. Moralitis is indicated to be a type of thought that appears superior, but that relies on perspective or in some cases a lack of one. Also there are only social, political and economic fields mentioned in the diagram. The medical field is ignored. This argument also ignores cultural perspective and context. It also fails to identify the geographical limitations of Moralitis. It does however make a few valid points, but it wrongly assumes that all thoughts are the same. Whereas Autism , Dyslexia and psychosis are very different in how the brain operates at the neuron level. And so the morality of an individual can often have real life interactions. If for instance a violent blow to the head damages the amygdala. To understand in full you need to examine why GAY CONVERSION THERAPY was shown to be nonsense and how it actually was provable in ANY court that it could not work. Again a flaw in the above article from a psychological or even psychiatric perspective is that some memory bypasses the amygdala. Such bypasses are different for everyone. So it is wrong to assume that in consideration of that fact alone rationality is the same for everyone. As I say the interactions at the neuron level disprove some of the above. Also you make no note beyond theoretical stance for trauma other than talking about peer pressure within a group. Individuals with PTSD for example have different triggers to those who do not have PTSD. Trauma varies in different cultural types too for the same reason re neuron firing patterns. Also visual processing can vary widely too. And cones and rods in the eye can change what perspective people get might as well question why they have blue, green or brown eyes etc. Again this is not alluded to in the above discussion. Perhaps a reconsideration is required especially on the medical and cultural elements of what makes an individual and their capacity to process information and their ability or inability to talk about a field about which they have an in-depth understanding.

Having a philosophy of one type or another does not conform to an actual physical virus that has a DNA and RNA. Moralitis is indicated to be a type of thought that appears superior, but that relies on perspective or in some cases a lack of one. Also there are only social, political and economic fields mentioned in the diagram. The medical field is ignored. This argument also ignores cultural perspective and context. It also fails to identify the geographical limitations of Moralitis. It does however make a few valid points, but it wrongly assumes that all thoughts are the same. Whereas Autism , Dyslexia and psychosis are very different in how the brain operates at the neuron level. And so the morality of an individual can often have real life interactions. If for instance a violent blow to the head damages the amygdala. To understand in full you need to examine why GAY CONVERSION THERAPY was shown to be nonsense and how it actually was provable in ANY court that it could not work. Again a flaw in the above article from a psychological or even psychiatric perspective is that some memory bypasses the amygdala. Such bypasses are different for everyone. So it is wrong to assume that in consideration of that fact alone rationality is the same for everyone. As I say the interactions at the neuron level disprove some of the above. Also you make no note beyond theoretical stance for trauma other than talking about peer pressure within a group. Individuals with PTSD for example have different triggers to those who do not have PTSD. Trauma varies in different cultural types too for the same reason re neuron firing patterns. Also visual processing can vary widely too. And cones and rods in the eye can change what perspective people get might as well question why they have blue, green or brown eyes etc. Again this is not alluded to in the above discussion. Perhaps a reconsideration is required especially on the medical and cultural elements of what makes an individual and their capacity to process information and their ability or inability to talk about a field about which they have an in-depth understanding.